tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post9210339770355018304..comments2016-12-09T08:55:30.881-08:00Comments on Resource Insights: How the myth of fossil fuel abundance actually impedes progress on climate changeKurt Cobbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05330759091950742285noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-9777289164985100652012-11-25T13:25:10.576-08:002012-11-25T13:25:10.576-08:00I actually thoroughly agree with the article.
I ...I actually thoroughly agree with the article. <br /><br />I am active in both peak oil and climate politics and have noticed amongst activists in the past year a marked decline in interest in the peak oil issue and a sense of defeat on the climate issue.<br /><br />It dawned on me that much of the interest in the peak oil issue stemmed from a genuine hope (wishful thinking) that running out of hydrocarbons was a backdoor way to save the planet&#39;s climate. That hope was never real, as we know, but it was like clutching at straws for many people.<br /><br />Then came all the news stories about the supposedly huge amount of new hydrocarbons that that could be exploited and all that wishful thinking was dashed against the rocks, and the peak oil issue lost its relevance to a lot of people.<br /><br />Meanwhile, all that exciting news about the US outstripping Saudi Arabia in oil production is hardly good news for those others who were fixed on reducing emissions.<br /><br />As an antidote to this trend in thinking, I focus a lot on the inexorable pathway to global recession – as the world can&#39;t afford the cost of keeping up energy supply. In a roundabout way this will have repercussions on climate, but more so a global recession will be more harmful in the short term than climate change will, and that alone calls for action on the energy front.<br /><br />The growing price of energy is enough reason to change the way we live and run our economies. Renewable energy is a partial solution but can&#39;t replace hydrocarbon energy.Chris Harrieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02370032392696620448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-30474950262198663402012-11-25T11:44:30.193-08:002012-11-25T11:44:30.193-08:00kurt, while i agree that we should already be maki...kurt, while i agree that we should already be making a transition to renewable energy - in fact, we should have started during the Carter years, there must be a strong belief among users as to coal&#39;s abundance; why else would they be <a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/king-coal-alive-and-kicking/" rel="nofollow">planning another 1200 coal fired generators</a>?rjshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15681812432224138582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-88268220141670422672012-11-25T11:35:57.959-08:002012-11-25T11:35:57.959-08:00Kurt - while I tend to share your view that ignori...Kurt - while I tend to share your view that ignoring the constraints on fossil fuel resources discredits advocates for climate action, it has to be said that those constraints can also be proposed as a reason to dismiss those same advocates.<br /><br />A singularly ill-informed person at or near the top of ASPO has been doing just that for years, claiming that even the shamefully understated warnings from the IPCC are inflated, owing to the finite scale of fossil resources.<br /><br />The pressing case for climate action is best described not by better accounting of Gts of fossil carbon - including coal-seam gasification and methyl hydrates&#39; extraction,<br />but by looking at the predictable outcome of the best case for mitigation by emissions control alone.<br /><br />Assuming that a best case is the fairly radical goal of near-zero global emissions by 2050, we are going to emit enough GHGs by then to add at least 0.6 of warming to the 0.7C of &#39;pipeline warming&#39; timelagged by ocean thermal inertia, on top of the 0.8C now realized, giving a first total of 2.1C of warming.<br /><br />BUT, ending fossil usage will also end the output of fossil sulphates that maintain the cooling &#39;sulphate parasol&#39;. Hansen &amp; Sato reported that this will raise warming by about 110% (+/-30%). This gives a second total of 4.41C (+/-0.6C) realized by around 2080 after the ~30yr timelag from 2050.<br /><br />To put this in context, global agriculture would be decimated long before we got near 4.4C of global warming.<br /><br />BUT, we already have six out of seven mega-feedbacks reportedly accelerating under just 0.8C, and several evidently have the potential to dwarf anthropogenic emissions.<br /><br />In the 68 years before 2080, with continuous warming to around 4.4C, it is highly likely that the feedbacks&#39; interactive outputs would raise warming well to over 5.0C, and possibly much higher. Thereafter warming would continue at a pace dictated by the feedbacks&#39; interactions.<br /><br />It is thus very clear that even under the best case of early and efficient implementation, mitigation by a strategy of emissions-control-only is not remotely commensurate with our predicament. We must in addition deploy global programs of both Carbon Recovery (by which to cleanse the atmosphere - at best by 2100), and of Albedo Restoration (by which to rapidly restore planetary temperature for the interim and so prevent the feedbacks&#39; further acceleration). <br /><br />That these programs will need to be mandated under a global climate treaty of Emissions Control to ensure the stringent global accountability and scientific supervision of their objectives, research, trials and deployment, seems very clear, but it not an argument against their now inevitable necessity.<br /><br />I suggest that the realization that we have left it much too late to resolve AGW just by cutting emissions is the level of shock required to spur the public into the requisite adamant demand for global agreement by American politicians - who have to date indulged in using the intensifying climate threat to food supplies as a potent lever within the superpowers&#39; rivalry over global economic dominance. That approach could and should be decried as the bipartisan policy of a &quot;Brinkmanship of Inaction&quot;, that was launched by Cheyney and has been adopted, and to date vigorously pursued, by Obama.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Lewis<br /><br />Lewis Cleverdonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-15110057259559755992012-11-25T06:23:29.271-08:002012-11-25T06:23:29.271-08:00The same could be said for the myth of non-abundan...The same could be said for the myth of non-abundance. <br /><br />Here is an interesting article on models that for the first time are better than the null models of random walk (!) by allowing for the natural shape of supply shocks. There is no random walk plateau or &quot;peak oil&quot; but an increased oil consumption (eventually at a much higher prize albeit with stable GDP): http://resourceinsights.blogspot.se/2012/11/does-imf-believe-we-have-peak-oil.html . (Yup, this very blog!) I take it frakking et cetera is enough data to make those predictions. <br /><br />In any case, the best model is far from non-abundance. Admittedly it isn&#39;t unconstrained abundance either. But it can be used to predict that if AGW should be somewhat ameliorated without any other actions, it must come from the rapidly increasing oil costs. Yes, it is the worst case scenario of &quot;this will fix itself, so we don&#39;t have to do anything&quot;.<br /><br />I don&#39;t think those of us who are concerned about AGW for moral reasons* (extreme weather kills people; non-beneficial change hits the poorest hardest) are helped by skewing the observations away from what they say. Both because it hurts strategies to do anything about the problems, and because it hurts the groups trying to do anything about the problems when the &quot;persuasive&quot; arguments turns out erroneous and/or unsupported by published best-of-breed models.<br /><br />* Note that I don&#39;t think it is moral to accept that the IMF models points to an improved situation, as we can do much better by being proactive about AGW.Torbjörn Larsson, OMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13304729731231255545noreply@blogger.com